Thread: AG Eric Holder in 2002 video: 'Detainees not covered by Geneva Convention'

Talk about a hypocrit. Here is a video on Liberal CNN of Holder saying the terrorist arent covered under the Geneva Convention. This is bad news for Obama.



Eric Holder arguing that Al Queda are not subject to Geneva Convention protections.



video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c8b_1227585416

[quote name='Militia Man' date='21 December 2009 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1261424608' post='83453']

Talk about a hypocrit. Here is a video on Liberal CNN of Holder saying the terrorist arent covered under the Geneva Convention. This is bad news for Obama.



Eric Holder arguing that Al Queda are not subject to Geneva Convention protections.



video:

http://www.liveleak....=c8b_1227585416

[/quote]



And all this talk from the liberals to prosecute Bush for baptizing terrorist. And Holder argues that AQ is not subject to the Geneva Convention protections.

[quote name='Forplay' date='21 December 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1261426877' post='83484']

And all this talk from the liberals to prosecute Bush for baptizing terrorist. And Holder argues that AQ is not subject to the Geneva Convention protections.

[/quote]



I see, that makes it ok to torture them?

[quote name='Morgan' date='21 December 2009 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1261431439' post='83541']

Regardless, POW's shouldn't be treated like dogs. We're civilized people for God's sake.

[/quote]

I agree that we should NOT torture terrorists. But saying that they (terrorists) are not covered by the Geneva Conventions does NOT mean that I think they should be tortured.

[quote name='Conservative15' date='21 December 2009 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1261434823' post='83568']

I agree that we should NOT torture terrorists. But saying that they (terrorists) are not covered by the Geneva Conventions does NOT mean that I think they should be tortured.

[/quote]

Then why even bother to fuckin bring it up? If you really don't believe we should be torturing anyone what difference does it make what the GC says? Or is that maybe because it might give your asshole buddy Bush some semblance of justification for doing it (in which case you are a hypocritical fool that really does NOT give a shit about torturing people anyway).

[quote name='Pragmatist' date='21 December 2009 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1261436440' post='83584']

Then why even bother to fuckin bring it up? If you really don't believe we should be torturing anyone what difference does it make what the GC says? Or is that maybe because it might give your asshole buddy Bush some semblance of justification for doing it (in which case you are a hypocritical fool that really does NOT give a shit about torturing people anyway).

[/quote]

Because the GC says specifically who is covered. That treaty simply does not apply to terrorists (or at least it isn't supposed to). Not covered by GC does NOT = torturing terrorists is OK.



And no, I'm not covering for Bush.

[quote name='Forplay' date='21 December 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1261426877' post='83484']

And all this talk from the liberals to prosecute Bush for baptizing terrorist. And Holder argues that AQ is not subject to the Geneva Convention protections.

[/quote]



Bush baptized terrorists? Wow, I thought Cheney only waterboarded them.